Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Wildrose moves ahead in new poll

The latest poll out of Alberta, the only one in the last week, shows Brian Jean's Wildrose moving ahead in provincial voting intentions as the Liberals collapse. In the projection, the movement has tipped a lot of races against the governing Progressive Conservatives in dramatic fashion.

The projection currently gives Wildrose the lead with just over 35% of the vote, enough to give them between 33 and 48 seats. That makes them the only party in the projection with a likely range surpassing the 44-seat mark needed for a majority government.

The New Democrats, at just under 32%, have improved their position significantly. Rachel Notley's NDP is now on track to win between 28 and 41 seats, which gives it plenty of overlap with Wildrose.

But it also gives the New Democrats no overlap with the Progressive Conservatives, who are now the odds-on favourite to finish third in the seat count with between four and 21 seats (the government's incumbency advantage tips the scales closer to 21 than to four, it should be said).

David Swann's Liberals are down to just over 4% of the vote, but because of how it is likely to be concentrated they could still hold on to between one and three of their seats.

The PCs are in a lot of trouble as they are only proving to be competitive in Calgary, and even there they trail in second with 30% in the projection to Wildrose's 35%. The New Democrats are dominating Edmonton (60%) and Wildrose is well-positioned in the rest of the province (43% to the Tories' 27%). It is a bit of a perfect storm for the opposition parties heading to the May 5 vote. Wildrose and the NDP look to have their vote concentrated in the right places, whereas the Tories have theirs spread out too evenly.

Wildrose was up four points to 35%, putting them ahead of the NDP, up just one point to 31%. The PCs were also up a point, increasing to 25% support.

The Liberals were down six points to just 4%, putting them in a tie with Greg Clark's Alberta Party (down one point to 4%).

The Liberal collapse is interesting. I asked Mainstreet whether they were making some adjustments for the Liberals or not, and I was told that all respondents had the Liberals as an option. That suggests that either Albertans are very aware of whether or not they have a Liberal candidate in their riding, or that even the party's 4% support is over-stated.

Mainstreet asked Liberal supporters what they would do if there was no candidate in their riding. The result bodes well for the New Democrats, as they were the choice of 61% of Liberals. Only 10% chose Wildrose and just 2% the Tories, suggesting that all of the Blue Liberals that flocked to the PCs in 2012 are now gone. What's left are people who are either centre-left or just anti-PC. Another knock against Jim Prentice's re-election chances.

Turnout is unlikely to benefit the Tories either, as Mainstreet found no real difference between all decided voters and those who say they are certain to vote. In fact, it only widened the margin between the Tories and Wildrose.

But the PCs do seem to have hit rock-bottom. They dropped five points in Edmonton, but were up slightly in Calgary and in the rest of Alberta. In those two regions, the race seems to be shaping up as a PC/Wildrose contest, as the NDP was down two points outside of Edmonton and Calgary and was unchanged in Calgary itself. The New Democrats may have hit their ceiling.

Their support is almost comically unbalanced, however, with their vote jumping 13 points to 64% in Edmonton. Their nearest rival was 48 points behind.

Wildrose is picking up some steam, with a gain of six points in Calgary and more marginal increases in Edmonton and the rest of the province.

On paper, it looks like Liberals have crossed over to Wildrose, as the increases that Wildrose experienced were almost identical to the decreases that the Liberals suffered (seven points in Edmonton and Calgary, four in the rest of the province). Considering the second-choice numbers for remaining Liberals, it is possible that all of the anti-PC Liberals have jumped ship to Wildrose. A more likely explanation, though, would be a lot of cross-pollination between parties, the end result being a jump for Wildrose.

The result in Calgary-Fort differed little from the projection, particularly considering the margin of error, and so serves to confirm that the NDP is indeed doing well in pockets of the city.

Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview, however, had the NDP with far less support than the projection expected. This is not too much of a surprise, since the proportional model can balloon a surging party's support in regions where they already have a strong base. It suggests that the NDP's support in Edmonton may be more uniformly spread, giving them a better chance in every riding. But with 64% support citywide according to Mainstreet, they already have pretty good odds.

But the campaign has been dominated so far by one-day IVR polls from Mainstreet Technologies. It would be very helpful if we had multiple sources to work with, each using different methodologies. I imagine - and hope - that a flurry of post-debate polls will crowd the playing field a little soon and give us a clearer picture of the race.

90 comments:

Sure appears that a Wildrose majority is in the works. With 42% support and 16% lead in the rest of Alberta a WR sweep with the possible exception of a Lethbridge and perhaps Red Deer seat seem possible. The NDP aren't out of it yet but, "cultural alignment" favours WR. This and next weeks polls will be interesting.

Éric,in your provincial tracker graph for all the polls of this election the plotted results for Wildrose seem to show a steady increase (roughly) : 26 - 28 - 30 - 30 - 31 - 32 - and finally a sharper tack upward to 35%. The poll numbers themselves show a flatter line : 31 - 31 - 30 - 31 - and then sharply up to 35%. Is the difference accounted for by the weighting you apply?

Meanwhile, I'm still adjusting to the weirdness of a genuinely interesting and transformative election campaign in Alberta. There's life in that political culture! Growing up in Calgary I knew that one day the Conservative monolith would have to come to an end (and sure, there are still 2 weeks left...), but it's still remarkable to see it happening, and particularly in this fashion. The Social Credit dynasty came to an end when it was replaced by a party who shared a devotion to business (in reality, if not dogma) but not the commitment to a strain of Christian fundamentalism. And if Wildrose wins, the transformation will be a less distinct version of the same thing in reverse. But the presence of the NDP makes this a much more remarkable transition.

The latest poll takes up 2/3 of the projection, so it has a lot of influence. But another factor is that I'm adjusting for likely results for the Liberals and Alberta Party. Combined, Mainstreet gives them 8%, but I give them 6.9%. In the previous poll, Mainstreet gave the two parties 15%. My adjustments would reduce that to just 8.5%. Those points need to go somewhere, which explains why the three main parties are currently projected to take more of the vote than the recent polls have said.

"Wildrose leader Brian Jean says he will not reveal the experts who helped develop the party’s fiscal plan. Jean is promising that a Wildrose government would balance Alberta’s budget by 2017 without raising taxes."

I wouldn’t expect any effect. Prior to the defections, Wildrose was Harper's preferred Alberta party - he openly supported Smith & Co. and it was people from Harper's coterie who 'masterminded' Wildrose's 2012 election strategy. Hard to say where things stand between the PMO and Wildrose now, but they share ideology, so Harper would be satisfied. Having Wildrose in power wouldn't undermine the federal Conservatives' electoral prospects the way an NDP victory might. Finally, there’s just not enough of a difference between Wildrose and the PCs to have a decisive impact on Alberta and Canada (Wildrose is largely made up of former Conservatives, remember), except in one respect. Wildrose is noticeably more right-wing on social issues than the PCs, so you might anticipate debates on abortion rights, religious issues, LGBT rights, etc. While attention is focused on all that, further austerity policies will be implemented, with a negative impact on most people’s income and an exaggeratedly positive impact on the income of a very tiny minority. Harper will construe the early consequences as economic successes (in spite of ground-level reality) and, going into the federal election, try to claim them as a vindication of his own policies.

I think you are placing far too much emphasis on social conservatism. There is nothing in any platform, if anything the WR would be more akin to the federal Harper government. The hope is that the change the WR will make is to instill a more fiscally conservative government. Alberta spends more than $1300 more per capita on government than the next highest province and there has not been any money saved from oil royalties. The fact that the PC's are talking large tax increases and no or nominal budget cuts speaks to this difference. For any Albertan who is not directly employed in the oil industry or government, there has been no benefit to the recent oil boom. That has to change.

Cam your point might well be true on Alberta's spending per capita, however the problem isn't that there are no budget cuts to go along with taxes.

Alberta's problem for a long time has been a lack of tax revenue in the coffers. In an effort to stay popular with voters and keep on the good side of big oil the PC's have not been responsible managers. Instead of raising taxes on corporations and instituting a progressive tax system they, used oil revenue (which should have been saves a la Norway) to fund the needed infrastructure and social programs in the province.

The PC's tax increase was relatively small in relation to what other provinces have. The problem is that they didn't bother to tax corporations and oil who have been getting a free ride for a while and at the same time they are cutting services. Installing a WR government wont change these problems, they have already stated they plan to cut the very programs people want and not raise taxes anyone.

Alberta's problem isn't spending, its revenue and saving, I only hope Alberta's voter realize that before they throw out the PC only to have the WR.

There are a lot of socially conservative members of Harper's caucus, so I agree; Wildrose and the Conservative government have a lot in common. To this point, Harper has mostly managed to muzzle those members so that their views don't jeopardize his party's position, but one can't count on Wildrose doing the same - or being so effective in any attempts they might make.

There certainly isn't a revenue problem in Alberta. We have so much revenue that we generously fund the operational budgets of many other provinces through transfer payments. Clearly if Revenue was a problem Alberta would not be spending $1300 more per capita than the next highest most spending province. Rather if revenue was the problem we would be spending the same as everyone else. $1300 per capita x 4.2 million Albertans = 5.6 billion or the vast majority of the deficit. Tough to argue that there is a revenue problem or that the solution is tax hikes when the entire problem can be resolved by being tied with the #2 most highest spending province in Canada. Clearly if Alberta were to make a conscious decision to have a small government and be the 5th highest spending province everyone could be getting tax cuts now instead of hikes which would benefit all Albertans.

I wouldn't expect a Wildrose government to make any appreciable difference to the larger political climate in Alberta or Canada. I think most people have been expecting Wildrose to take over from the PCs for a while now (Alberta! Even wing-nuttier right-wingers! It's a lock!). It's precisely the presumed "cultural alignment" that bede cites, above, that would make a Wildrose victory something of a non-event, despite being in principle a historic change. That's not to say it wouldn't make any difference in policy direction, but it wouldn't alter any perceptions.

On the other hand, if Notley's NDP were to form government, THAT would be an earthquake felt from coast to coast to coast!

I will agree that Alberta has and is spending a lot but most of that spending has been and is on the back of Resource Royalties. I will also grant you that you Alberta has in the last 10 years been giving more in transfers then it receives, but join the club, Ontario had been doing that for many many decades before that and they were doing that thank to Tax revenues on industry.

That we have a transfers system should be a point of pride not one of resentments. I know Albertans might not like to here this but the oil in the ground the is the birthright of all Canadians just as the industrial revenue of Ontario is.

But back to the point, it is quite easy to argue that is a revenue problems, the province has implemented many needed infrastructural and social programs without the taxes needed to pay for it. Instead they used oil royalties to fund those projects.

Now that the prince of oil is way down their foolish flat income tax system is not able to meet the short fall. So what did the PC do? they raised the flat income tax by a marginal amount and added some taxed on other products, but they didn't tax oil or corporations or the wealthy. Is it any wonder why average people are pissed of and are ready to throw the PCs out?

@Cam: No, sir, we residents of Alberta do not support other provinces out of our provincial tax base; that is an extreme right-wing myth perpetuated by Western separatists and Wildrosers. The Government of Canada pools tax and other revenues collected from all parts of Canada (which still includes Albeeta, unless something happened while I was asleep), and contributes transfer payments to the revenues of all the provinces and territories, including Alberta; equalization payments are part of those transfer payments. In the next fiscal year, Alberta stands to receive $5.5 billion, or $1,310 per capita (this is, by the way, the same per capita amount BC & Saskatchewan will receive), in federal transfer payments. See http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp#Alberta for tables.

@ The count; I won't argue with you politics on a polling site, but suffice to say if you spend more than everyone else per capita you have a spending problem. Alberta spends more per capita and there is much room to cut. Full stop, no need to discuss revenue at all. I would prefer if this revenue stayed in my pocket to fund my childrens education rather than to be wasted by government but that is a political argument. Best of luck in the soviet block.

If the best you can do is invoke 50s and 60s era propaganda trying to compare the NDP with the soviet empire, you didn't have much of an argument in the first place. I haven't compared Canada's right-wing parties to the National Socialist, Fascists or military dictators of history. If you're interested in real debate you would have the decency to use facts to rebut my analysts not name calling that makes you look petty.

I'm perfectly happy that you disagree with my view and analysts but again back it up with facts not platitudes and rhetoric. The facts is that while you have every right to say you want more money in your pocket, it high time right-wing voters like you acknowledge reality.

Your prosperity and comfort (I'm going to assume you're middle class and live a decent standard of living) has been and continues to be build on the back of your fellows. With out governments and taxes you have no roads, security, defenses, schools, hospitals and any of the countless other services you take for granted. You might not have used all those services but they are there when you do need them. The mantra of the right is selfishness and greed not personal responsibility and innovation. The mantra of the left is equality and opportunity which are the only paths to personal responsibility and innovation. Yes that means the Government has a major role to play in our live and that also mean taxes must be raised according to one's means, and those are the sacrifices we should be willing to make to insure our children's and out nation's future.

Shared sacrifice binds people together, it make sure we all have a place to be long to and an interest in what happens and a goal to work towards.

Not meant as a dismissal of the work done here, but I wish Election Day would just hurry up and get here. The bottom line is interesting to watch and speculate on what may the end of a 43-year government, but there's no comfort level in extrapolating from polls based on the last time.

People look at the 44 year reign and think that Albertans don't like change. As as result, they don't change governments.

But I think that's shallow analysis. I think Albertans REALLY don't like change, and they react very strongly to change they don't like. So when the government in power changes into something they would rather it not be, they toss it out violently, seemingly as punishment, and they never forgive.

The best example would be the 1935 election, but it almost happened in 1993.

Might a potential polling disaster be in the works if the supporters of some parties are way more wildly enthusiastic with responding to pollsters? Activists and political die-hards tend to flock to the more extreme right and left, after all...

I don't think Albertans don't like change, I think they feel utterly alienated from politics and the political process - and that they've felt this way since the 1960s at least. The political culture in Alberta is unusually impoverished precisely for the reason that no one feels a part of it. Albertans think that highways and schools and hospitals and such are the products of the oil industry, rather than government, and it would never occur to them that government ought to be their representative. Albertans distrust government on principle, yet are submissive to it. Only rarely do political figures manage to gain folk appeal : with Ralph Klein, because his reprehensible behaviour allowed them a vicarious outlet for their unfocused anger and frustration, with Naheed Nenshi, because of his active compassion and obvious commitment to the community. But generally, politics is like a dull or irritating spectator sport.

That's not what I was saying, I was just giving Klein and Nenshi as examples of albertan politicians that had strong folk appeal, in contrast to the more typically bland or irritating character of alberta politics generally.

Ralph appealed to those people who are prone to feelings of schadenfreude, who like a bully to beat up on someone else so they can feel a bit better off themselves, all of it coated in a fake veneer of "stick it to the man". Nenshi appeals to those who have a sense of solidarity, and who prefer pragmatic decency, but without this affecting the fundamentals of a capitalist society.

The truth about Nenshi is he appeals to a small section of Calgarians. He is too cute by half persona is wearing thin. he was elected as the best of a bad bunch and re-elected because Calgarians knew they needed a pro-infrastructure mayor to facilitate and managed growth.

Nenshi is not a populist or folksy in the traditional sense, he's more like a Stanfield; a respectable likable uncle whose not going to rock the boat.

In both his elections for mayor he has had weak competition, if ever a real challenger emerges the results win or lose will be far more interesting.

"...he appeals to a small section of Calgarians." Yes, that small 74% of the vote. As for no competition, let's compare with the stellar opponents to Ralph Klein - biggest name, Ross Alger, who had no discernible personality. Al Duerr had no notable opponents.

Moreover, she's a lifelong British Columbian. She understands BC in a way that I never will. I'm not surprised that she called the BC election.

The only question remaining in Alberta is whether we'll see Alberta's first minority government, and which party it will be (the NDP could still win a plurality of seats if the PCs hold most of Calgary).

14 days before the election. For Alberta PC Party to pull this off, they will need an increase of roughly one percentage point per day in popular support. This must be done in critical constituencies for them too - Calgary, Edmonton and Calgary/Edmonton corridor. I think Jim Prentice's biggest chance of success is a blunder from the opposition (like Wildrose's inflammatory comments in 2012).

The Liberal collapse isn't a big surprise. Centre and progressive voters in this province have long split our efforts, but the fact is that most of us don't care about the brand...we just want to see someone we might agree with from time to time in power. When the polling for the ND's took off, it told us where we ought to park our vote.

I don't know the dynamics in Swann's riding, but I think Blakeman can probably ride it out (I'd vote for her again if I still lived in Edm-Centre). But in ridings without a progressive incumbent, people clearly see where they can get the most value.

In my current riding (Edmonton Glenora), I've spotted one Liberal sign. Hiding behind a tree on the same lot as an NDP sign. The ND's are 3 to 4 per block, with one property sporting 2 PC signs every couple of blocks.

The polling results in Edmonton seem pretty believable based on what I'm seeing.

Calgary-Mountainview is a pretty much a safe Liberal seat. Dr. Swann is well liked and a good constituency man. I can't see the NDP picking off this seat. The riding is middle-upper class primarily with a good dose of students, if enough of the students vote perhaps it could turn NDP but, we all know the turnout rate for 18-25 year olds is around 20%.

Or watch PC and Liberal voters vote NDP for the same reason. This manifestation of the PCs can't be counted on to defeat Wildrose, but the NDP actually might. And the likelihood of a minority government regardless lowers the risk...

I agree that it's mostly likely not enforceable, but it's the political damage that stops it more than legal threat. The last batch of floor crossers didn't do well in PC nominations, and even if they were nominated, they would carry it as baggage in the next election cycle.

That said, I don't think this is an issue that needs to be 'fixed'. In theory, we are voting for the individual, not the party. This gave me the interesting thought of STV and moving pass the single candidate per party system. Rather than trying to find the strongest candidate first and then letting people vote, give people the choice and you might find a more popular winner. It would even add new vigor into partisan strongholds.

Violating a contract is violating a contract. And since this is actually a voluntary contract - WR doesn't require its candidates sign - I can't imagine any basis for a claim that the fine wouldn't have to be paid.

Well if the contract is not legal; you could sign a contract with a hitman to do a "job" but, if you don't pay the hitman he doesn't have recourse to go to the Courts. Even if he did go to Court the learned judge would probably find the contract is not enforceable.

Violating a contract is not always violating a contract. Just yesterday a learned judge from the Supreme Court of BC threw out a contract that had turned a $22,000 loan into a debt of $119,000. In this particular instance you are asking the Courts to intervene into the affairs of the Legislative Assembly-a body that is self-governing! It is doubtful either the Courts or the Speaker would take up such a matter.

I don't think the contract has anything to do with the legislature. The legislature isn't affected. The only people affected by the contract are the people who voluntarily do so, and there aren't even conditions on signing it. No one has to sign it to get a nomination. Signing it doesn't prevent someone from crossing the floor or otherwise doing his or her job as an MLA.

What party a M.P. or M.,L.A. decides to belong to inside the House is a matter for the Speaker and the House. It is not about who is affected-it is about jurisdiction! You can't go to Court claiming damages if the Courts don't have jurisdiction to hear the case! More importantly a contract is not binding so long as it is not enforceable.

A contract is only valid and enforceable, if it is legal. It's a question of supremcy. For example, I can sign a lease that says "no pets allowed", but that clause has no legal standing as it violates my rights. It is only enforceable by convention.

I have two simulators at the moment. The original one seems to greatly underestimate the NDP numbers in Edmonton, while greatly overestimating the PC numbers. The rest of the province is doing quite good though. But I have made some modifications in the Edmonton ridings to get closer to actual numbers. So here are my two models' predictions (modified and original, in order):

People must be getting fed up with Conservatives. Alberta PC's tanking, Harper is now tanking in the last two most recent polls, and federally losing a lot of ground in Alberta and the west. Its a nationwide loss of ground for Conservatives.

Those federal polls of Alberta, right now, might be influenced a lot by people getting confused by which election they're talking about. Once Jim Prentice goes away, I expect people's distaste for the CPC to diminish somewhat.

1. Nanos has published a new national survey, but I can't seem to find their procinvial/regional data. Do you know how to get it? I have written to Nanos in the past, without receiving an answer.

2. I know you don't consider interest groups, so all the 1AB polls are not counted, but I also know you mentioned not knowing how to take Google Surveys into consideration in context to your aggregate. I was wondering, if any legitimate firm was using it, how you would proceed? Or, let's say their results turn out right, how you will proceed in the future? The numbers are... interesting, to say the least. Could you, before the end of the campaign, present one article about those, without considering them for the aggregate? I think it would make for an interesting read.

One fly in the ointment is the uneven candidate coverage of the Liberals & Alberta Party (AP). Neither has a full slate, but their gaps don't mesh. Some seats have an AP candidate, but no Liberal, and others vice-versa; some have both, and others neither. How AP & Liberal voters will shake out in seats without both options is, IMHO, a crapshoot.

Forum has a new poll out this morning with a 38% to 25% NDP lead over Wildrose. This puts NDP into majority territory. I expect you're already working on new averages, but at this point, the PCs look likely to be reduced to single digits.

Polls indicate that the vast majority of Alberta Liberal and Alberta Party supporters have the NDP as their second choice. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see where they will go in ridings where there is no Liberal or AP candidate on the ballot

Marx was an analyst of early capitalism, and among the best of them. He can't be held accountable by those power-hungry arseholes who have invoked his name in support of their cause (I'm looking at you, Lenin!).

COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.

Details on the methodology of the poll aggregation and seat projections are available here and here. Methodology for the forecasting model used during election campaigns is available here.

Projections on this site are subject to the margins of error of the opinion polls included in the model, as well as the unpredictable nature of politics at the riding level. The degree of uncertainty in the projections is also reflected by the projections' high and low ranges, when noted.

ThreeHundredEight.com is a non-partisan site and is committed to reporting on polls responsibly.